STATE OVERSIGHT

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

STATES SEEK LEAD OVERSIGHT ROLE AT CLOSING BASES

State environmental regulators, represented by the Association of State 
and Territorial Solid Waste Management Organizations (ASTSWMO), are 
seeking an increased role in the oversight of environmental restoration 
activities at closing military bases that are not on the "Superfund" 
National Priorities List (NPL). Defense Environmental Alert (January 1, 
1997) reprinted an October 25, 1996 ASTSWMO background paper and 
November 27 letter to U.S. EPA on the subject.

Currently both state regulators and U.S. EPA are active in the 
oversight of cleanup at closing bases. State oversight is funded by the 
Defense Department through the Defense State Memoranda of Agreement 
(DSMOA). Through an intergency Memorandum of Understanding, Defense 
provides about $12.9 million a year to support 150 full-time equivalent 
positions at EPA headquarters and, primarily, in its regional offices.

Many states consider dual oversight duplicative, and they are proposing 
to take the lead, essentially serving as the sole cleanup regulator for 
most purposes at non-NPL sites. (At non-closing bases this is already 
the case.) ASTSWMO suggests that EPA hand over this authority to 
"qualified and willing" states, and they are discussing ways to fund 
the additional activity.

On the other hand, other states value EPA participation, so ASTSWMO 
suggests that their respective roles be decided through site-specific 
negotiations between the state and federal regulatory agencies.

This is a new version of an old question, and community stakeholders 
need to weigh in. The states behind this push are generally the states 
with both the will and the ability to perform oversight effectively, 
but other states may seek the same authority. Some states have 
notoriously weak oversight programs and are unlikely to take on the 
Defense Department. Others, particularly in the south, have very weak 
environmental justice records. 

Weak oversight not only affects the states in question. It can drive 
down oversight nationally. Already, the armed services are pointing out 
that cleanup is more costly in some states than others. While reducing 
some of the discrepancy may make sense, relying on weak regulators to 
protect public health and the environment is an appropriate way to save 
money.

It's important, therefore, that the determination of will and 
qualifications not be left to the states themselves or even to EPA. 
Communities, through their restoration advisory aboard, should play an 
active part in any determination that it may be appropriate to shift 
responsibility. The Restoration Advisory Boards, in general, are in an 
ideal position to help make that judgment.

This isn't just an issue of "turf." It's a question of what is the best 
way to protect our communities.